On March 31, 2015 the Vientiane Times reported that four restaurants at Laos’ Golden Triangle Special Economic Zone (GT SEZ) had been shut down and illegal wildlife products confiscated and burnt, following the release of EIA’s Sin City report.

Subsequent accounts suggest it was a multi-agency response and, on the face of it, it was a welcome and encouraging first step from the Laotian authorities. The remain questions, however, as to the impact and scope of the effort and what is planned in the long-term.

For example, why would the authorities burn the evidence they presumably need for prosecutions? It’s not clear if they have filed any charges and are planning to take anyone to court.

It wasn’t just restaurants that were raided; footage from Laos TV shows authorities in the Golden Triangle Treasure Hall gift shop where two stuffed tigers, seven tiger skins, one leopard skin and vast quantities of ivory had been documented by EIA and partner Education for Vietnam (ENV). Yet it’s not clear if the ivory, stuffed tigers and other illegal wildlife products from this shop were destroyed as well.

Likewise, it’s not apparent from the stills and video footage available whether the tiger skeletons from the vats of wine in restaurants and retail outlets in the GT SEZ Chinatown were also destroyed.

Burning wildlife contraband at the GT SEZ, screengrab via Laos National TVContrary to the assertion in the Vientiane Times that local people had supplied the wildlife that was confiscated and burned, the stuffed tigers had come from China and six of the seven tiger skins had been trafficked from Mong La in Myanmar, with the source of those tigers possibly India, Thailand and Malaysia.

As a Party to the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Laos should have taken action to help determine the source of the tiger parts before destroying them. In July 2014, the 65th Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee adopted a recommendation requesting Parties making seizures of tiger skins to take photographs of the stripe patterns (an identifying feature as unique as fingerprints) and share them with countries maintaining stripe-pattern profile databases of wild tigers, such as India. In this way, efforts can be made to determine origin and shed further light on the transnational criminal networks involved. It is not clear if the authorities in Laos implemented this action, or if DNA samples were taken of the tiger, ivory and other wildlife products before they were burnt.

It is also not clear if the Laos authorities are investigating associations between the Chinese business individuals engaged in illegal wildlife trade at the GT SEZ and their contacts in China and Myanmar, or whether any financial investigations are under way to help map those connections.

Officials seal a business in the raid on the GT SEZ, screengrab via Laos National TV

Crucially, there have been no reports on what is happening to the live bears and tigers at the GT SEZ, or what action is being taken to end tiger farming – again, consistent with Laos’ commitments under CITES. It was clear from our engagement with the live animal enclosure manager that the intention is to expand its operations to industrial-scale production of tiger bone wine. There was no mention in the media as to what action, if any, Laos is taking to prevent this. Officials seal a business in the raid on the GT SEZ, screengrab via Laos National TV

Laos is currently subject to CITES trade suspensions for failing to submit an adequate National Ivory Action Plan and the recent law enforcement action may be a sign of a willingness to act when under the spotlight.

But what we would like to see is tangible evidence of an intelligence-led enforcement response, an effort to investigate the individuals involved in the trafficking of tigers and other wildlife into the GT SEZ and a proactive response to end tiger farming. We look forward to working with relevant national and intergovernmental agencies to encourage a meaningful response in Laos.

EIA recognises that Laos cannot do this alone and, accordingly, Sin City sends a clear message to the Government of China over its responsibility to investigate the roles of Chinese nationals and businesses associated with illegal wildlife trade at the GT SEZ.

Japan has decided to import eight elephants from the secretive, communist nation of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, despite the Asian elephant being endangered, Ingrid Suter from the University of Queensland reports.

The 2011 tsunami that devastated Japan was undeniably a tragedy on many scales. Thousands killed, tainted agriculture, disappearing tourism and overall economic gloom. It’s little wonder the Japanese government is looking for some way to lift national spirits and make life near Fukushima marginally bearable.

Japan has decided to import eight elephants from the secretive, communist nation of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

Viewed as a way to bolster national morale and happiness, the Japanese Government is expediting the “renting” of elephants from Laos. Known as “Japan-Laos Goodwill Elephants,” eight predominately young female elephants will soon be shipped from their forested and subtropical homes in north-west Laos, to the cold, concreted and caged Tohoko Safari Park, 20 kilometers outside the Fukushima evacuation zone. Well that’s where the fortunate ones will end up. Two are destined for the Kinoshito Circus, whereabouts unknown.

A mahout, mother elephant, and her calf in a captive breeding program, Sayaboury, Laos. ElefantAsia

The Asian elephant is an internationally recognised endangered species, and its outright exportation is banned under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Fauna (CITES). However the “renting” of Asian elephants is acceptable. These eight elephants will be exported under a three-year agreement between the Japanese and Lao governments. In theory.

In practice rentals from Laos are rarely, if ever, monitored or returned home. Take for example the two young elephants “rented” to North Koreas’ Pyongyang Zoo in 2009. Only the complete naive will believe this next batch will ever return home to rural Laos.

Why the government of Japan seeks eight elephants from one of the most poverty-stricken, secretive nations in Southeast Asia is a question worth asking. Thailand, Sri Lanka and India, all signatories of CITES, have thousands more elephants than Laos; surely it makes sense to source zoo elephants from their shores?

Certainly Laos has a longstanding culture of gift-giving to show admiration and respect between nations. Certainly Japan is worthy of Lao’s admiration, being the biggest bilateral provider of development aid to this impoverished nation. But when and where must the line of gratitude end? From both conservation and economic perspectives Laos simply cannot afford to lose eight more young elephants.

Laos needs these elephants. It is not hysterical to say the future of elephants in Laos depends on them. Once officially named “the land of a million elephants”, today Laos is struggling to maintain a population of a mere 900. The Vietnam War, forest degradation and poaching have seen Asian elephant populations crash almost to the point of no return.

Elephants are not reproducing fast enough to replace their ageing population. There is only an estimated 60 domestic female elephants under the age of 35. The Government of Laos giving away elephants like goodie bags makes a mockery of national environmental policy and the conservation efforts undertaken by non-government organisations.

Hundreds of men in Laos still use elephants on a daily basis for work in remote areas where where there is a lack of alternative employment. Thousands of family members directly rely on the income earned from these elephants.

Young elephants destined for Japan would be better utilised working in the Lao eco-tourism industry, bringing much-needed income to this disadvantaged nation. They are desperately needed as reproductive ambassadors for their home nation.

Elephants play a role as reproductive ambassadors for their country in Laos, along with a big part in eco-tourism. ElefantAsia

The Japanese and Lao Governments are coordinating the elephant transfer with haste. One can assume with confidence that Lao elephants were chosen for the very same reason why in 2012 Laos remains an under-developed nation: transparency, or lack thereof. Transparency International rates Laos 154 out of 183 nations.

If you have ever lived and worked in Laos you understand the implications of this rating. On the bright side, getting out of a traffic offence is a simple matter of naming the police officer’s price (which they will happily propose). The sinister side is excessive illegal logging, rife transnational wildlife trafficking and the government constantly turning a blind-eye to environmental policy and protocol.

How Laos was ever approved as and remains a signatory to CITES is baffling. Reports continually condemn Laos as a gateway nation for the illegal smuggling of all types of contraband. Yet nothing ever seems to change. Nobody commits to tackling these issues.

When contacts at CITES are questioned, they say the Japanese-Lao elephant transfer is all above board, legitimate and lawful. However others closer to the source say CITES-Laos is not performing to international standards, making the validity of their CITES certificates highly questionable.

Scratch the surface and it’s easy to see why Japan chose eight of Lao’s young elephants and not elephants residing in democratic societies. For the Japanese government a forgotten nation’s endangered elephants is a justifiable trade-off for their people to have something cute to visit.

Ask any Lao elephant owner what they think about elephants and they will all respond in a similar fashion, “I love my elephant like he is my brother.”

Laos communities are desperate for help but in a closed nation their right to protest this exportation is non-existent. Elephant owners would love to have more elephant’s calves to continue the living cultural heritage of their ancestors.

Despite this, the Government of Laos continues giving away their elephants like they’re going out of fashion. Going out of existence is more like it.

Two-month old lion cubs shelter in a Kenyan wildlife services quarantine room in June after their mother was shot dead. Source: AFP

LION bones have become a hot commodity for their use in Asian traditional medicine, driving up exports from South Africa to the East and creating new fears of the survival of the species.

Conservationists are already angry over lion trophy hunting.

The skeletons are mostly shipped to Vietnam and Laos, feeding conservationists’ fears that the market will drive up lion poaching – just as the illegal hunting of rhinos escalates for their horns, also popular in Asian traditional remedies.

“Suddenly, and very recently, there are a great number of people from Laos who have a big interest for trophy hunting. And that had never happened in the whole history of Laos!” said Pieter Kat from conservation NGO LionAid.

Around 500 lions are hunted legally every year in South Africa, most of them from commercial lion breeding farms which also supply zoos all over the world.

Until recently hunters paid $US20,000 ($16,200 euros) just for a trophy to hang above the fireplace, and the carcass was thrown to the dogs.

But their crushed bones have become popular as substitute for the bones of tigers in love potions or “tiger wine”. Trade in tiger parts is banned under international law as the animal is a threatened species.

Now Asian hunters buy lion trophy hunting permits to get at the bones.

Most swear it’s about the trophy, which means safari operators and breeders can easily dispose of the carcass at the same time and make an extra buck.

A lion skeleton these days fetches up to $US10,000.

A few hundred partial or complete lion skeletons were shipped out of the country in 2010, according to latest official figures – all completely legal.

The trade started in 2008.

“That trade is monitored very, very closely by provincial officers,” said Pieter Potgieter, chairman of the South African Predator Breeders Association.

“They don’t release the bones unless they are sure that they come from a legally hunted lion or that the lion died of natural causes.”

But activists cry foul play, saying it is worsening the captive breeding of lions for what has come to be known as “canned” hunting.

‘Harvested’ for their bones

“Lions are now being specifically bred in captivity to be ‘harvested’ for their bones,” said Paul Hart, who runs a lion sanctuary in the south west of the country.

Animal rights groups also say some cats are killed off on the sly, a theory possibly supported by the nabbing of illegal exporters at OR Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg.

Breeders are also coy about the number of lions they have on their farms. South Africa is thought to have 5000 in captivity.

But the bones of wild lions – thought to be more potent – are worth even more in Asia, which threatens the 3000 big cats left in the country’s reserves, animal rights groups say.

Around 700,000 people signed an online petition asking South African President Jacob Zuma to suspend lion bone exports from his country.

“It is just a question of time before the poachers find their way in this market and kill the lions. Why should they go and buy an expensive carcass from a breeder if they can poach it and get it for nearly nothing?” said Chris Mercer from the Campaign Against Canned Hunting.

Breeders deny the lion bone trade will spark poaching similar to that of rhinos. Almost 500 were killed last year alone for their horns, whose trade is banned.

“If lion bone is available legally, on the market, why would anyone choose to take all the risks and costs associated with poaching?

“The South African lion breeding industry can supply a lot of demand, and we can make a contribution towards the saving of the Asian tigers and also the South African lions,” said Mr Potgieter.

Groups are divided over the dilemma: maintain a legal and regulated trade in lion carcasses from animals bred in captivity or outlaw the trade and risk a spike in poaching.

Laos’s Xayaburi dam project faces opposition throughout the region over its ecological impact.

The Mekong, a precious jewel of Southeast Asia, has become a critical battleground between hydropower dam projects and the survival of the world’s greatest freshwater fisheries.

The future of this 4,880 km (3032 miles) long river may well be decided by what happens to the Xayaburi mega-dam project in Laos, the first of a cascade of 11 dam projects on the lower Mekong.

Ame Trandem from the NGO International Rivers explained that, “The Mekong River is the lifeblood of Southeast Asia, feeding and employing millions of people. To move forward with the Xayaburi Dam would be reckless and irresponsible, as the dam would fatally impact the river’s ecosystem and fisheries.”

In spite of repeated reports that the Xayaburi dam project had been suspended pending further scientific studies, a recent visit to the dam-site has suggested that the Lao government has not bowed to international pressure. As a World Wildlife Fund analysis recently warned, “Construction work is marching ahead at the Xayaburi dam site in northern Laos and risks making a mockery of the decision last December by Mekong countries to delay building the dam on the Mekong mainstream.”

In December 2011 the four-member nations of the Mekong River Commission – Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam –agreed that no dams should be built until further scientific studies of the negative impacts on all the riparian countries had been completed.

Scientists have warned that if the 11 dams are built it could bring on an ecological disaster that harms many of the 877 Mekong fish species. Furthermore, it is the uninhibited flow of the Mekong through the heart of Southeast Asia and the river’s bountiful natural resources that guarantees 65 million people’s food security.

Although Cambodia and Vietnam are determined to stop the dam, everything indicates that the Thai developer Ch. Karnchang and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR) are equally determined to build it. In this context, a failure to resolve the dam issue could also trigger a major diplomatic row among the Mekong nations, undermining the credibility of the MRC and disrupting international cooperation along the region’s most important waterway.

“The Xayaburi Dam will trigger an ecological crisis of tremendous proportions. We urge the Prime Ministers of Laos and Thailand to show leadership by cancelling this project,” Shalmali Guttal of Focus on the Global South, a member of the 263 coalition of NGOs from 51 nations said in a statement condemning the damn.

In response to this opposition, Lao Foreign Minister, Thongloun Sisoulithmade announced during last month’s ASEAN FM summit that his country was suspending work on the Xayaburi dam until further studies on its impact could be done. Although opponents of the dam welcomed Vientiane’s announcement, they soon were disappointed.

Soon after the Lao government’s announcements, a number of diplomats, MRC officials, experts, and donors visited Laos to see the site. After the visit some MRC observers then asserted that, “the project is in an advanced preparation stage with exploratory excavation in and around the river completed.”

Similarly, International Rivers concluded in their own unofficial investigation of the dam-site in June, that, “the dredging and widening of river has already taken place.”

Meanwhile back in Bangkok, Ch.Karnchang, the Thai developer of the US$3.8 billion project, said the dam was going ahead with no delays in the original timetable.

Initial construction has evidently started, however. Has the Laotian government then reneged on its international commitments?

Deputy Minister for Energy and Mines Viraphonh Viravonghas denied any violation of the MRC agreements. Instead he contended that all the construction done so far falls under the rubric of “preparatory work,” noting that the construction “does not involve permanent structures” and instead is mostly about building makeshift housing for construction workers.

But fisheries experts say that long before the river is fully blocked, existing construction will disturb the riverbed enough to significantly affect fish populations and the flow of sediments downstream.

Dr. Jian-hua Meng, a sustainable hydropower specialist working at the WWF, argues that, “This will be the first direct intervention in the riverbed, and will mark a milestone in the ongoing dam construction.”

According to a WWF report, which was strongly critical of the Dam project, Viraphonh Viravong, Laos’s Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines, contradicted the foreign minister when he allegedly told the MRC-led delegation that the project would proceed without further reviews.

Since September 2010 ongoing consultations based on the MRC regulatory framework has resulted in the Lao government trying to answer the strong objections from Cambodia and Vietnam. Unsatisfied, Vietnam has called for a 10-year moratorium on dam construction.

To answer these objections Laos appointed two foreign consultants: the Swiss –based Poyry Energy and French company CNR (Compagnie Nationale du Rhone).

Still, Cambodia and Vietnam remain convinced that any dam will block fish migration and reduce the flow of sediment.

Both foreign consultants argue that fish ladders or fish passes can enable 85% of all fish to get past the turbines and successfully swim up or down river but this claim has not been fully tested.

Indeed, many dismissed Poyry’s previous report- a compliance review of the Xayaburi Dam in 2011 regarding the consultation process with its neighbors- as lacking the necessarily scientific data.

It’s also worth noting that the Finnish-based Poyry has been blacklisted by the World Bank for unrelated corruption charges that have led the CEO to resign. This calls into question its credibility.

Very different advice to the Lao government came from the visiting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said last month that, “I’ll be very honest with you; We made a lot of mistakes…. We’ve learned some hard lessons about what happens when you make certain infrastructure decisions, and I think that we all can contribute to helping the nations of the Mekong region avoid the mistakes that we and others made.”

Washington is also concerned that if the Xayaburi dam goes ahead, China is lined up to build at least three more dams further down the Mekong thus penetrating ever deeper into the Mekong sub-region.

NGOs representing people from the eight provinces in northeast Thailand are about to file legal action in the courts to force the Thai government to review the contract with the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), the state’s electricity body. Thailand has agreed to buy 95% of all the power generated from the Xayaburi dam.

The Thai government has quietly endorsed the MRC consensus that further scientific study is needed. Now NGOs are demanding that the Thai government do more and use its power to freeze the Xayaburi/EGAT contract, which in turn would pressure the Thai dam-builder Karnchang to halt the project.

According to scientists the stakes are high in this ongoing battle over sustainable development. WWF’s Dr. Jian-hua Meng has warned, for instance, that “Resting the future of the Mekong on flawed analysis and gaps in critical data could have dire consequences for the livelihoods of millions of people living in the Mekong river basin.

Tom Fawthrop is a Thailand-based journalist and producer. His work has appeared in The Guardian, Al-Jazeera and the New Statesman, among other publications.

Laos’ construction work on the first dam on the lower Mekong River requires a strong response from neighbouringcountries to delay the project, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said Tuesday.

Environmentalists say the Xayaburi dam in northern Laos would havedetrimental effects on wildlife and residents’ livelihoods. TheMekong River Commission, of which Laos is a member, called for theproject to be delayed by 10 years to allow environmental research, but construction and the resettlement of villages have proceeded, theWWF said.

The WWF was included in a delegation of foreign diplomats andexperts taken to the dam site last week to be briefed on the Thaicontractor’s plans to mitigate the impact on fisheries and sedimentflows.

“While Laos’ decision to host a visit to the dam site is positive,it’s clear construction is advancing,” said Jian-hua Meng, the WWF’ssustainable hydropower specialist, who joined the delegation.

The groups was told that extra money would be spent on the3.8-billion-dollar project to aid fish migration and sediment flowsin the Mekong.

But environmental groups such as International Rivers and now theWWF argued that the dam’s proposed technologies, such as fishpassages, have been untested in South-East Asian rivers.

“Nowhere in the tropics has a successful fish passage been builtfor a dam the size of Xayaburi,” said Eric Baran of the World FishCentre in Phnom Penh, Cambodia